Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 225

Fri, 04 Nov 2011

• 1. Re: To Stand or Not to Stand for a Chosson and Kallah (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 2. Re: Status of Non-Jew born to Jewish Father (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: mabul (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: mabul (Micha Berger)
• 5. Is there any issur here al pi halacha?--selling/buying of kidneys (Joseph Kaplan)
• 6. The daf yomi in Chulin 128a Tanaim hold the the kishus planted in an otsits sh?aino nakuf is yonaik min ha'aretz - is their botany different than ours? (hankman)
• 7. Re: The daf yomi in Chulin 128a Tanaim hold the the kishus planted in an otsits sh???aino nakuf is yonaik min ha'aretz - is their botany different than ours? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Is there any issur here al pi halacha? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Kiddush Levanah, nusach EY (Micha Berger)
• 10. 4 kings vs 5 kings (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Tefila Over Loudspeakers At a Big Gatherings (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Aveira Lishmah (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 13. Re: Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New York man pleads guilty to selling Israeli human organs (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: The daf yomi in Chulin 128a Tanaim hold the thekishus planted in an otsits sh???aino nakuf is yonaik min ha'aretz- is their botany different than ours? (hankman)

On 2/11/2011 9:51 PM, Poppers, Michael wrote:
> I have a possibly-related Q: at least some of the many who stand for that
last line first stand for all of "Mizmor l'David Havu laH'" (and then sit
down prior to the start of "L'cha Dodi") -- why the custom to stand for that
mizmor?

R' ZS:
AIUI, because it contains Hashem's name 18 times.
--------------


times. I'm not sure what, though.

KT,
MYG

 

From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> Based on the mesorah in  which I was raised, I would strongly disagree 
with your friend's approach.   Converting a baby when the mother is not Jewish 
and will not be raising the baby  in a Jewish, Torah home is just plain 
wrong.[--TK]

The child is not being  converted now.  Only the milah is being done,
so that if the child  eventually decides to complete his conversion (or
if the family decides to  return to yiddishkeit) he won't have to have
that done as an adult.

--  
Zev Sero         
z...@sero.name   




>>>>>
The original post mentioned two eidim and a bris done leshem gerus.
 
IF the bris is taking place privately, with only the parents and the eidim  
in attendance, with the intention of making a later gerus easier (should 
one  eventually take place) then that would be acceptable.  But if the bris is 
 being done as a Jewish ceremony with friends and relatives in  attendance, 
and the gerus part hush-hush, then it is quite wrong and very  misleading 
to the immediate circle of friends and family and very dangerous to  Klal 
Yisrael.
 

--Toby Katz
================




_____________________
 
 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111103/3d2ab053/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/11/2011 6:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> R' Yonah (4th gen, early 4th cent) talks
> about Alexander flying high enough to see that the earth was a ball.
> But that's 2 centuries after Rebbe.

The story of Alexander is also in Bavli, Mas. Tomid.  But in that gemara
does it mean a ball or a disc?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 12:27:23AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 3/11/2011 6:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> R' Yonah (4th gen, early 4th cent) talks
>> about Alexander flying high enough to see that the earth was a ball.
>> But that's 2 centuries after Rebbe.
>
> The story of Alexander is also in Bavli, Mas. Tomid.

I assume you mean the 10 questions of Alexander the Great, in Tamid
31b-32a. (It is relevent, and was the only match for "Aleksunderus" and
"Tamid" I found on he.wikisource.org.) The gemara is stam, so I can't play
this game of which tanna or amora believed what. But more importantly
I didn't see the story of flying up in that gemara. Just a question of
whether the sun is closer to us at noon or when rising or setting. The
answer -- at noon, is consistent with either a ball or a disk.

>                                                        Butin that gemara
> does it mean a ball or a disc?

Is AZ 3:1 banning the use of balls or discs as the device atop a standard
(or flagpole)? In the Y-mi, R' Yonah is quoted in the discussion
explaining that issur. The word is "kadur" in both the mishnah and the
quote of R' Yonah.

R' Yonah is an Israeli amora, so he had no less exposure to Greek thought
-- or as I would put it, the Roman acceptance of this Greek model of
the cosmos following Ptolmey -- than a tanna would have. More, actually,
since that acceptance was pretty much universal by his day.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R'n TK: "If a much larger pool of kidneys becomes available I don't know how or why  
the poor person would be any worse off than he is now. <snip>  I bet you could get a lot of people to donate a kidney for the cost of a  
single week in the ICU of an American hospital."

That's a big "if" and a non slam dunk "bet."  I asked earlier if anyone had
any knowledge with respect to the argument of those involved in transplants
that paying donors would not increase transplants.  The only response was
from RMYG cited to a study that supported that arguments.  While some have
argued that the study was about blood donation and not transplants, no one
has come up with any factual, as opposed to intuitive, argument that
they're wrong.	So, as I said, it's a big "if." But, assuming, arguendo,
that the "if" is correct, then I would agree that donors should get some
compensation.  but even that doesn't meant that we should allow organs to
be sold to the highest bidder.	Perhaps certain government compensation
could be given (tax credits, early admission or free admission to Medicare
etc.) so the number of donors would increase but the concept (which I
believe -- no proof, just believe -- is the most ethical) that those who
need the organ most from a medical 
 standpoint rather than richest would continue.

Joseph Kaplan

The daf yomi in Chulin 128a both the Tana Kama and R. Shimon hold the the
kishus planted in an otsits sh?aino nakuf and whose branch is protruding
over the edge is yonaik min ha?aretz derech ha?avir. Can anyone explain
just what the plant is obtaining from the aretz that would cause the plant
to still be considered mechubor la?aretz? The co2, o2 and water vapor are
all obtained directly (just) from the atmosphere and not from aretz via the
atmosphere. What am I missing here?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111104/e1adc969/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 12:24:43AM -0400, hankman wrote:
: Can anyone explain just what the plant is obtaining from the aretz that
: would cause the plant to still be considered mechubor la???aretz? The co2,
: o2 and water vapor are all obtained directly (just) from the atmosphere
: and not from aretz via the atmosphere. What am I missing here?

Who said "yoneiq min haaretz" is a scientific statement altogether?

If the point of halakhah is to hone our souls (deveiqus or sheleimus),
then what is relevent to it is not the scientific explanation of events,
but the psychological one. How is the object or event perceived, or
perceivable (if the person could have seen it, but didn't). Not how it is.

Think of the words metzi'us or mamashus -- the world is as people
experience it first-hand, not as how we can objectively deduce it is
through tools and further reason.

Thus, a pot with a hole in it isn't sufficiently separated from the
ground *to be thought of* as distinct.


Besides, where does the vapor come from? At the height of an herb or
vegetable, isn't most of it evaporating off the ground right below
the branch?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

R' Joseph Kaplan quoted "R'n IE": [That's Rebbetzin Ilana Eltzadfun. -micha]
> The idea is really scary and makes me very uncomfortable, but
> it's hard to make a moral judgment given that everyone comes out
> ahead - the recipient gets a kidney and the donor gets badly
> needed money.

RJK then commented:
> Not everybody.  The poor person whose condition is worse than
> the rich person's but doesn't get the kidney and dies comes
> out way behind.

It seems to me that RJK's comment is accurate only if the poor person
could have gotten that kidney through other channels. But if the rich
person got a kidney which would not have been available any way other
than via payment, then the poor person could not have gotten it any way.

Phrased another way: RJK's comment presumes a fixed number of available
kidneys. But if market forces are allowed to come into play, it can
increase the number of available kidneys, because people who had been
unwilling to donate them, might now be willing to sell them. This
is indeed good for the donor/seller, and good for the richman/buyer,
without being bad for the poor man.

BUT!!! Lest anyone think I'm endorsing these organ sales, let's also be
honest enough to admit that there will indeed be some people who were
previously willing to donate their kidney to the patient who needs it
the most, but will now change their mind and offer it only to the highest
bidder. I do NOT deny them the right to do so, but let's all admit that
this scenario would indeed be bad for the poor man.

(And of course, as I wrote before, I am also fearful that market forces
could exert undue pressure on some people to sell their kidneys against
their best interests. I think that a ban on organ sales is a surefire way
to protect such people. But I must concede that over the past few days
my thoughts have softened, and I can see the view of those who say that
such a total ban is too draconian, and squeezes an already insufficient
supply of kidneys.)



R' Micha Berger wrote:
> See RMF's (IM CM 2:73.2) and RSZA's (Nishmat Avraham YD pg 156)
> where they each say that if two patients arrive at the same
> time, the one with a better chance at chayei olam goes first;
> but if you are already caring for someone capable only of chayei
> sha'ah, you can't stop treating him to make time for the chayei
> olam. When RSZA says that the mishnah in Horios can't be
> implemented today (as RJR cited), he doesn't mean that therefore
> there are no halakhos of triage.

R' Joel Rich commented:
> the quote above being a classic example (I'd ask anyone with
> connections to see if they can get any non-YU gedolim to comment)
> as to what exactly did R'SZA mean - is it not applicable today or
> is it applicable but no one will listen.....

> It seems some/most current  poskim treat horiyot priorities as a
> tertiary tie breaker with almost no application (i.e. if both
> cholim are equally sick and equally distant from the dr\ and we
> know they keep the same number of mitzvot......)  some interpret
> the whole water bottle thing as chaye shah vs. olam)

> IMHO the minhag haolam (and poskim but I can't say which came
> first), is not what one would have expected from the primary
> sources,

My guess is that RMB was looking at the original Hebrew version of Nishmat
Avraham. The reason I say that is because he refers to page 156. In my
English edition, from 2003, the discussion of Triage fills several pages,
from 181 to 185.

RMB wrote that according to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, "the mishnah in
Horios can't be implemented today", but he doesn't explain WHY it can't
be implemented today.

RJR is explicitly unsure about this: "is it not applicable today or is
it applicable but no one will listen....."

I would like to bring some quotes from the English version of Nishmat
Avraham, and I hope they will clarify RSZA's intention.

Nishmat Avraham, vol 2, pg 182, col 2, near top:

"The Igrot Moshe continues that although with regard to the rules of
precedence we should follow the Mishnah, nevertheless it is difficult
in practice to do so without much thought and study. Rav Auerbach zt"l
[Minchat Shlomo Tanina 86:1] also writes that nowadays it is very
difficult to follow the rules of the Mishnah."

Nishmat Avraham, vol 2, pg 183, from bottom of col 1 to top of col 2:

"The Igrot Moshe, already quoted above, writes that although with
regard to the rules of precedence we should follow what the Mishnah,
nevertheless, in practice, it is difficult to do so without much thought
and study. Rav Auerbach zt"l wrote, [Assia 59-60, Iyar 5757 pg 48]
quoting the Pri Megadim,[beginning of Siman 328 in Mishbetzot Zahav]
that if one of the two patients is definitely dangerously ill and the
other only possibly so, and only one can be treated, the patient who is
definitely dangerously ill takes precedence over the one who is only
possibly so. Therefore the main criteria that must be considered are
the degree of danger to the patient's life and the chances of saving
him. The patient's age is of no consequence whatsoever. See the Mishnah
and Gemara at the end of tractate Horayot which gives the priorities of
who comes first in being freed from captivity and with regard to other
issues. See, however, above that both the Igrot Moshe and Rav Auerbach
zt"l write that nowadays it is extremely difficult to follow this ruling."

Nishmat Avraham, vol 2, pg 183, col 2, near bottom:

"How does arriving first acquire for one the right to precedence in terms
of Halachah? ... ... I found that Rav Zilberstein shlita also asks what
standing the concept of "in turn" has in Halacha?" -- This is followed
by two pages of shakla v'tarya on the subject.

It seems to me, based on the Nishmat Avraham, that RSZA would reject
RJR's suggestion that Horiyos is "not applicable today". He would also
reject the suggestion that it is "applicable but no one will listen",
but this is a bit closer to the answer we're looking for.

It's not that no one will listen to Horiyos, but that it is too difficult
to do so. Look at those quotes again; each of the two quotes contains
the word "difficult" twice. It is already difficult enough to give each
patient a proper diagnosis in a limited amount of time. To give these
other tasks to the physician as well just isn't fair.

No one disputes Horiyos. It's just too difficult and we've given up on
it. That is my attempt at explaining what Rav Auerbach meant.

But honesty requires me to offer the following rebuttal:

Please note that all of the above quotes from Nishmat Avraham were from
a section titled "Triage". It all makes perfect sense for those in the
emergency room, or any other "front line" situation. And an argument
could be made that it also applies to a physician making his rounds in
the hospital, trying to give each patient the best care that he can.

But I cannot see applying any of that to a committee whose task is the
allocation of limited resources -- in this case, kidneys. There is a
committee somewhere, which meets at regular intervals, and they have a
large pile of case histories of sick and dying people who desperately
need kidneys. But there aren't enough kidneys for them all, and they
have the unenviable job of figuring out who needs them the most, by
whichever criteria they have.

The guys in the Hatzala ambulance don't have the time to ask the
accident victims, "Are you a kohen?" But the people in the Transplant
Selection Committee DO have the time to investigate these things. Indeed,
investigating anything which could be relevant to their prioritization
criteria is *exactly* what they're supposed to do.

So... Are they asking, or not? And if not, then *why* not?

And so the questions of RMB and RJR still stand.

Akiva Miller

We are told that when Romans tried suppressing Qiddush haChodesh, they
gave messengers a code phrase to say rather than risking being
overheard.

In the Bavli, we are told it was "David melekh Yisrael chai veqayam."
In the Y-mi, (RH 3:1 16a) it's "Goaleinu", which according to the
Penei Moshe refers to "Goaleinu H' Tzevakos shemo." The PM adds that
this phrase adds fear of sheim H' lashav and reduces the chance of
lying.

So I'm wondering... Did Nusach EY have a concept of Qiddush Levana?
And if so, did it include saying "Goaleinu" (the word or the pasuq)
three times?

From the "helix" leading into the Lincoln Tunnel,
Good Shabbos!

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Shetir'u Batov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Why does the Torah gives us the details of where the battles took place, how
long the 5 served the 4 kings and how long they revolted etc.
The commentaries only seem to deal with the general issue of why the story
appears in chumash and not why all the details (many pesukim) appear.

BTW some commentaries (eg Sforno) stress the bravery of the 4 kings against
the 5.
However, historically it seems to be the opposite. The group of the 4 kings
includes
major powers in the large region like Bavel, Media etc. The 5 kings were
all local
chieftains near Sdom. Number of kings doesnt determine military superiority

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111104/23c78e3e/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=2181

Rav Shlomo Zalman says that hearing something through an electronic 
device such as loudspeaker or telephone is not considered hearing in 
Halacha.  The reason is that you are not hearing a person's voice 
rather you are listening to an electronic simulation of it. 
Technically you cannot be yotzei any bracha or even answer amen.

If so during large gatherings where a microphone is used by the 
Chazan, how could people answer amen?  Rav Shlomo Zalman explains 
that the shul in Alexandria, Mitzrayim was so large that people could 
not hear the Chazan.  They set up a flag system where people would 
answer upon seeing the different flags being waived and this way 
would be able to participate in the tefila and they answered amen 
even if they didn't actually hear.

Similarly he says if you are standing in a minyan and cannot hear the 
chazzan, but only know that amen is being said because you hear it on 
the speaker system, then you may answer amen together with the 
Tzibbur.  Not because you are answering to the loudspeaker but rather 
because you are part of a minyan.  Although you do not technically 
hear what they are saying, the loudspeaker indicates this to 
you.  However if you are not standing in the presence of the minyan 
you may not answer. (Halichos Shlomo, Tefila 22:15)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111104/26b48169/attachment-0001.htm>

I am bothered by a dvar Torah I recently read about Lech Lecha. It was
written by a Rabbi Yaacov Haber of "TorahLab". You can read the full
article at http://www.
torahlab.org/calendar/article/soul_sacrifice/  Here's the second half
of it:

> Avrohom gave up his spiritual growth for the spiritual growth of
> his nephew Lot. Avrohom?s kindness was not limited to his
> sacrificing his body comfort only. He was willing to sacrifice
> the fulfillment of his soul for the spiritual welfare of another
> human being.
>
> I once heard a story from the Mirrer Rosh Yeshivah, Rabbi Shmuel
> Berenbaum  ZTtl. (1920 -2008)
>
> There was a small town that needed a mikvah. The Rav of the town
> spoke to the people of the importance of the project and he
> finally persuaded the community to build the mikvah. There was
> only one catch. The community owned a piece of land where the old
> synagogue once stood. They had built a new synagogue down the
> street and the community leaders decided that the only place for
> the mikvah is where the Shul stands no more.
>
> The dilemma; there are many things that one can build on the plot
> that was once a shul. One of the things that can not be built
> there is a mikvah! If the rabbi allows for the building of the
> mikvah he is violating the halachah; if he doesn?t then the
> community will not have a mikvah at all. What should he do?
>
> The perplexed Rabbi decided to consult with the sagacious Chazon
> Ish. (Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, (1878-1953)
>
> The Chazon Ish answered, ?If you build the mikvah you will be
> punished by G-d for violating the Halachah. However, as the Rabbi
> you should accept this punishment upon yourself so that the
> community will have a Mikvah!?
>
> The answer boggles the mind, but this is the teaching of Abraham.
>
> How far should one go? You have to even give up your soul in
> order to benefit the soul of your neighbor. Chesed L?Avrohom!

For the sake of discussion, let's presume that the story is accurate.

I certainly understand that there are times when one must sacrifice some of
his ruchniyus for the sake of someone else. But that should be limited to
choosing a less-important mitzvah over a more-important mitzvah. (As in our
parsha, where Avraham would certainly have preferred not to remain in the
company of Lot, but did so as a chessed to Lot.) What I DON'T understand is
actually descending into forbidden territory for this purpose -- how can
one actually commit an aveira lishmah?

Actually, I DO understand that. We are humans, and sometimes our emotions
get the better of us, and our yetzer hara convinces us to do things that we
ought not do. For example, in the story cited, suppose the rav of that town
had said to himself, "I know it is assur to build a mikveh on the spot
where a shul used to stand. But I'm just not strong enough. I want these
people to have a mikveh, and I'm going to let them do it." -- I can
understand that. Perhaps too well.

But that is an individual losing the fight with his own yetzer hara. How
can the Gadol Hador take the side of the Yetzer Hara in that battle? How
can the Chazon Ish tell the rav, "you should accept this punishment upon
yourself so that the community will have a Mikvah!"

I do not think this discussion should debate the halacha that a mikveh may
not be built on the spot where a shul used to be. Maybe there are
extenuating circumstances where one may be lenient, but citing those
opinions would take us away from the question which I'm asking. Besides, if
the story is accurate, then the Chazon Ish did not cite those leniencies
either. And he also didn't urge the rav to work harder on finding a
different place to build the mikveh. He seems to have accepted the halacha
that if the only place to build a mikveh is on the spot where a shul used
to be, then the mikveh may NOT be built there. Yet he urged the rav to do
so anyway.

So my question is: GIVEN that a certain action is assur, why on earth would the Gadol Hador advise someone to violate the halacha?

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 03:23:13PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Not only that, but even if nobody is offering money and you are donating
: your water, you can give it to whomever you like. "Ve'ish es kodoshov lo
: yihyu".  There are no rules...

RZS made a similar comment yesterday (Thu Nov 3) at 12:43pm EDT:
: On 3/11/2011 11:01 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
:> OTOH, RZS appears to believe that public resources are a different issue
:> than brokering resources that never reach the public pool.

: My basis is simple dinei mamonos. The reason there are objective criteria
: for the public kupah is because it's the property of the whole community
: ...                     The Torah says that each person has the right
: to allocate *his* kodoshim as he pleases, not those of other people. ...

The pasuq refers to terumah and maaser rishon.

According to Rashi, it is saying you have the right to pick whichever
kohein or levi you wish, a kohein can't come and claim his portion by
force. But there are rules -- terumah to kohanim, and maaser to leviim.

According to the Ramban it refers to maaser sheini and neta revai
("qedoshav"), which are qodesh but his. And those too have rules.

I therefore assume you both are relying on a poetic extension of Rashi's
point (chazal's point as quoted by Rashi) -- a person may choose to give
*tzedaqah* to whomever he wants. This might be true in general, but it
is true when issues like "lo saamod" are involved? An exteme example:
May I give a formerly wealthy person his limo as a "dei machsero" when
I know of a poor person who hasn't eaten in 3 days and is omeid lamus?

And if not, then how do we know I can extend my general liberty of
choice of tzedaqah recipient to cases where I'm deciding mi yichyeh
umi yamus?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

RMB wrote:
> Who said "yoneiq min haaretz" is a scientific statement altogether?

> If the point of halakhah is to hone our souls (deveiqus or sheleimus),
> then what is relevent to it is not the scientific explanation of events,
> but the psychological one. How is the object or event perceived, or
> perceivable (if the person could have seen it, but didn't). Not how it is.

> Think of the words metzi'us or mamashus -- the world is as people
> experience it first-hand, not as how we can objectively deduce it is
> through tools and further reason.

As I wrote the last time we discussed science in the gemara (achbor)
this kind of answer leaves me unsatisfied. I would expect that the
gemara be scientifically correct as well unless we accept R. Slifkin's
premise which I used to assume myself prior to many gedolim banning his
books. Now I am simply conflicted whenever I encounter this issue.

RMB wrote:
> Thus, a pot with a hole in it isn't sufficiently separated from the
> ground *to be thought of* as distinct.

We are talking about an otsits shaino nakuf but the nof is leaning over
its edge.

RMB wrote:
> Besides, where does the vapor come from? At the height of an herb or
> vegetable, isn't most of it evaporating off the ground right below
> the branch?

I thought about that too, but I doubt it is the answer. I think most of
the water vapor is from the atmosphere mostly taken up over the oceans
and large bodies of water. There is precious little evaporation going
on over ordinary soil except perhaps immediately after a heavy rain and
this is not likely to sustain a plant. Furthermore I am not sure that
just water vapor would be considered a nutrient (I am not to sure about
this last point). Also if it is yoneik derech avir it mystifies me why
only if it is directly over the earth but not it the plant is just inside
the lip of the otsits. Air does not move in straight lines of site like
a light ray, but wafts about all over in eddies etc. and could get to
the plant even within the lip of the otsits and this would be recognized
even just psychologically by the hamon am of their day as well.

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 225
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."